221–230 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like they are able to apply for religious exemptions so I’m not sure what the issue is here
What religion would come handy? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster say you should not be vaccinated? I would expect them to require some proof of religious affiliation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vaccines are the magic future where a small bit of technology prevents disease and death. That's the part I've found so disappointing about this: a couple of decades of development and we have a massive breakthrough in our ability to rapidly create and update vaccines which precisely target near-arbitrary targets. Seeing what would have been a sci-fi technology when I was a kid being the target of so many consp…
Those medical experts should look at themselves for why people react this way. An absolute refusal to accept any legal liability for harms done by the product, whilst simultaneously insisting it's perfectly safe? Check. Claims that anyone worried about long term effects is a crazy malicious person when Moderna was failing to progress beyond animal trials due to multi-dose toxicity as recently as 2017? Check. [2] Fana…
I'm not sure why you have been convinced of these falsehoods, or why you think anybody else could be swayed a bit by them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoops - It said young (whatever that means) as an adjective. I'll edit that in.
It means 18 to 44, according to the article.
(I am vaccinated please don't post hot takes about how I am a anti-vaxer.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those medical experts should look at themselves for why people react this way. An absolute refusal to accept any legal liability for harms done by the product, whilst simultaneously insisting it's perfectly safe? Check. Claims that anyone worried about long term effects is a crazy malicious person when Moderna was failing to progress beyond animal trials due to multi-dose toxicity as recently as 2017? Check. [2] Fana…
You are just making up ridiculous claims that don't pass even a basic sniff test, much less ant tiny amount of skeptical inquiry. I'm not sure why you have been convinced of these falsehoods, or why you think anybody else could be swayed a bit by them.
For example if you don't believe the claim about legal immunity, maybe you'll believe CNBC?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
At any rate, your comment is unsubstantive, which is against the HN rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if health insurers will start denying claims related to the treatment of COVID infections Will health insurers deny claims related to cancer if you have been drinking alcohol? Good luck living in that world.
Quitting alcohol is nowhere as easy as getting covid vaccines. If there was a cheap/free safe vaccine that reduced the chances of getting hospitalized or dying of cancer by >60%, your point would be more valid.
I'm not aware of any other risky behaviors that exclude coverage, so this would be a precedent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those medical experts should look at themselves for why people react this way. An absolute refusal to accept any legal liability for harms done by the product, whilst simultaneously insisting it's perfectly safe? Check. Claims that anyone worried about long term effects is a crazy malicious person when Moderna was failing to progress beyond animal trials due to multi-dose toxicity as recently as 2017? Check. [2] Fana…
If I wanted antivax propaganda, I could get it myself. You're just copy-and-pasting things you don't understand so I won't be spending time on further replies.
Your approach of dismissing and saying you are taking your ball and going home is not really a convincing counter-argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I wanted antivax propaganda, I could get it myself. You're just copy-and-pasting things you don't understand so I won't be spending time on further replies.
Even if you think his arguments are silly, it would be more effective to use facts and data to destroy his argument instead of a ad hominem ("you don't understand") attack on his intelligence. Your approach of dismissing and saying you are taking your ball and going home is not really a convincing counter-argument.
Intelligent adults generally get vaccinated (unless they have a preexisting medical condition), so I can imagine that Googlers don't have problem with saying goodbye to the few antivaxx colleagues.
I think we can say, at a minimum, compliant adults get the vaccine. Intelligent or otherwise, why would Google or any company want to retain anti-authoritarian staff?
Understanding statistics behind vaccines requires some general understanding of setting up controlled experiments (vs just looking at some numbers, like ratio of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people in hospitals without controlling for age).
Generally more intelligent people have a better understanding of statistics, and Google uses a way of intelligence test to hire people (even if that is unpopular here on HN).
I'm definitely pro-vaccine, but I'm also concerned about the long-term impact of alienating whole swaths of the country with policies like these. Perhaps there are less onerous policies that would be similarly effective? To address the risk of transmission for in-person employees, would a combination of masking and testing be similarly effective at minimizing office outbreaks? As for the increase in a company's healt…
> let health insurance companies consider vaccination status when calculating an individual's health insurance premiums If I'm in my late 20s or early 30s and in great shape and eat healthy, a vaccine is not going to make a difference in personal risk. If anything, vaccine rates should be used by a company when getting health insurance benefits for the org as a whole.
Assuming that's true then I'd expect your health insurance premiums to remain similar regardless of your vaccination status. I didn't mean to argue that people who are unvaccinated should be charged more, I meant to argue that vaccination status should be added as a sixth factor that health insurance companies are legally allowed to use to set premiums. (The ACA already allows them to consider things like tobacco use and age.)
> If anything, vaccine rates should be used by a company when getting health insurance benefits for the org as a whole.
Seems reasonable. If it results in cost increases for the company it would be up to the company to decide how to pass that on to employees. (I.e. should everyone pay a little more, just the unvaccinated, or should the company eat the cost?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my country (EU) COVID incidents get handled by public health system only. Which was not in great shape to begin with. Health insurers had bailed out since day zero on COVID. There's lately though talk about unvaccinated COVID patients bearing the cost nonetheless. Note that public health system is for free.
> Note that public health system is for free. In my country (also EU) the public health system is most definitely not "free". It is paid for by a universal tax called (insidiously and inaccurately) "health insurance". > There's lately though talk about unvaccinated COVID patients bearing the cost nonetheless. Calls for true insurance (individualized, based on actual health and habits) are completely infeasible for po…
1. public health system will take care of you to its abilities (which to a large extent are defined by the taxation yes)
2. no private insurer is paying or covering anything COVID-related and they never did
3. been trying to get private insurance on top of the public one and I'm told time and again that a few systems of mine will be excluded (i.e. they won't insure me for anything bearing the remotest possibility of actually needing them for). Also that I am too old to start now...
if anything is clear from the COVID story in my mind is that we need a better and more capable public health system. Private healthcare is not about health or care.